Criminal law principles and applications

¶ … senior at the Magic City School of Law, Sally Sue, who was top of her class of two hundred. This individual along with another individual planned the murder of the law professor; a very difficult instructor whose test Sally Sue was worried she could not pass. The individual, Bob, who agreed to shove the professor down the stairs agreed to this when he was either inebriated or on some type of drugs or heavy medication. Sally Sue was so enraged when she made a C. On the exam that Bob had not killed the professor that she ran at Bob and shoved him down the stairs injuring him. The objective of this work in writing is to examine the case, as would a District Attorney when screening warrants and answer the questions asking:

(1) What, if any charges can be made against Sally Sue?

(2) What if any charges can be made against Bob?

Finally, this work will discuss the potential defenses available to either Sally Sue or Bob.

Potential Charges Against Sally Sue and Bob

There are several charges that can be leveled against Sally Sue. First of all, conspiracy to commit murder is one charge that Sally Sue could receive. Conspiracy occurs when an unlawful objective is being pursued by two or more individuals. There must be an agreement, intent to agree, and intent to pursue the objective that is unlawful. The liability for conspiracy is such that each conspirator is liable for the crimes of all the other conspirators. (Stepanow, 2012, p.1)

Insofar as a conspiracy to murder charges where Bob is concerned the research turns to the case of John Boother, Appellant v. State of Indiana 136 Ind. 435 in which the appellant was indicted for conspiracy to commit murder and the defendant was intoxicated at the time he committed the crime. This case involved an individual who had actually committed assault and battery upon a victim "with the felonious intent to commit murder in the first degree." (Desty, Rich, Farnham and Smith, 1915) The test of law in a conspiracy charge is 'intent' and therefore, in the case of Bob, who did not remember making these plans with Sally Sue, who never acknowledged the existence of these plans, and who never made any overt act that demonstrated his intention to carry out these plans however; the opinions of the Indiana Supreme Court judges stated as follows:

"Voluntary intoxication was no excuse for crime; voluntary intoxication was of itself a crime, and a man could not plead in excuse of one crime the fact that he had committed another." (Harris v. United States, 8 App. D.C. 20,36 L.R.A. 465; United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason 91, Fed. Cas. No. 14866; Com. V. Hankins, 3 Gray 363; State v. Morgan 40 S.C. 315, 18 S.E. 937; Beasley v. State 40 Ala. 140; Mercer v. State, 17, Ga. 164; People v. Rogers, 18 N.Y. 9:72 AM. Dec. 494; Flanigan v. People, 86, N.Y. 554. 40. Am Rep. 566; State v. Brandy, 24 S.C. 439, 58 Am. Rep. 263; Cluck v. State, 40 Ind 263 cited in Desty, Rich, Farnham, and Smith, 1915)

In the state of Oklahoma, voluntary intoxication is to be considered by the jury when an individual has committed premeditation murder in terms of the effect of the intoxication upon the ability of the defendant to form and entertain such a design at the time he was intoxicated and the murder committed. (Oklahoma Criminal Reports, Vol. 15, 1919, p. 496) In fact, in the state of Oklahoma, if the defendant is intoxicated and had not premeditated plans to commit murder then the murder charge will dropped and a manslaughter charge entered instead.

II. Elements Required to Constitute Conspiracy

Conspiracy occurs when one individual asks another individual to commit a crime and they agree. The elements to a conspiracy are:

(1) an agreement;

(2) intent to agree; and (3) intent to pursue the unlawful objective. (Case TM, 2012)

In this specific case, Bob then, can be charged for conspiracy but it does not appear that the case is a strong one as Bob, while agreeing to the conspiracy, has not shown any intent to agree or intent to pursue the unlawful objective. Sally Sue on the other hand struck the agreement, intended to agree, and had full intentions of pursuing the unlawful objective of murdering the professor. It is true that withdrawal from the conspiracy, even when adequate cannot withdraw the defendant from liability from the conspiracy itself, however, in the present case under consideration, it is apparent that Bob never had any intention whatsoever of murdering the professor as he did not even remember what Sally Sue is talking about and never made any move to harm the professor.

Sally Sue can be charged and likely convicted on assault and possibly even on attempted murder as the crime committed against Bob, shoving him down the stairs is reflective of her intent in the conspiracy to murder charge, or that of pushing the professor down the same flight of stairs that she pushed Bob down for failing to kill the professor.

Summary and Conclusion

There are specific elements required to constitute conspiracy to commit a crime and those have been related in this brief case study of two fictional characters that conspired to murder a law professor. Specifically the elements required to constitute a conspiracy crime are those of: (1) an agreement; (2) intent to agree; and (3) intent to pursue the unlawful objective. (Case TM, 2012)